Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[FoolKiller]

You might want to listen to the tape again. When the 911 operator ask Zimmerman to meet the police at the mail box at first he says OK, then all of a sudden he says "can you tell them to call me so I can tell them where I'm at." This indicates to me he had no intention to going back to the mail boxes. Also when they told him to stop pursing him the wind was defiantly still whirling in the phone. From the sounds of it In my opinion it sounded like he was still running.

I agree there is still wind noise, but not to the same degree. I will say I'm listening on my iPhone, so my fidelity isn't great. But his breathing doesn't indicate running to me, never does. It sounds like an overweight man walking, possibly fast, but he catches his breath enough to give his phone number and address (edited out for obvious reasons) clearly. I didn't say he headed for where they told him to meet, but that he is moving slowly enough to have a discussion of where he should meet them. When was the last time you had a clear conversation while running?

I guess the question is what is meant by running? When he said it, did he mean that Martin just saw him and turned around, or does running mean running? If Martin didn't run in the traditional sense, then nothing from the audio indicates that Zimmerman stopped. If Martin did really run though the audio does not indicate an active pursuit at the time of the call. And one has to wonder how he caught up to Martin, because I'm not betting on Zimmerman to win that foot race. That is pre-judging a bit, but it is a legitimate doubt that any juror could have. And that is all that is required.

Fact is, we do not know what happened and that is my ultimate point. Everyone assumes, including myself early one, that Zimmerman continued chasing Martin to confront him. We do not know that. We don't know where Martin is killed in relation to Zimmerman's car. Is it on the same block? A block over? Two? Three? Was Zimmerman following carefully and Martin doubled back in a bout of teenage anger to teach this guy a lesson, so they met face-to-face, both intent on confrontation?

We...don't...know. And if anyone, who wasn't there, says or acts like they do at this point is lying or deluded. It is all just assumptions. I don't want the ridiculous outrage we heard over the Casey Anthony case, but I fear it will be worse because of the race issues the media and others have brought into it. This paragraph is all referring to the general public as a whole, and not just this thread, by the way.

 

[a6m5]

I just caught this headline on google news:

Shellie Zimmerman, wife of Trayvon Martin killer, arrested on perjury charge link

Who needs court, when NBC can doctor the evidence, then inform us of the verdict they have reached?

That 911 call they edited, plus the Remington 700 story where they used rifles with manipulated trigger system to make case against Remington, those were the two out of three stories that destroyed my faith in the media this year. All I can say is keep up the good work, NBC. They just surpassed ABC(these guys only rig electrical to create runaway Toyotas) as the network I don't believe. 👍

 

[ShobThaBob]

They didn't say anything false. Whether or not he is convicted of murder, the fact the he killed Martin is not in contention.

 

[a6m5]

They didn't say anything false. Whether or not he is convicted of murder, the fact the he killed Martin is not in contention.

Yeah, that did cross my mind.

My beef was more to do with the fact that when someone kills in a accident, or self defense, media will not label you a "killer" in the headline. Not unless it was their intention to get that particular message across.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

We are back at my original question: Why should they lock up Zimmerman?

Bail is set at 1.000.000 $.

"It appears to this court that defendant is manipulating the system to his own benefit" -- Florida judge on Zimmerman

OK but does that make him a threat to society?

 

[ShobThaBob]

Well, he's being accused of a very serious crime, so in the interim they hold him in jail. It's pretty standard for all crimes above basic misdemeanors. Lying under oath has its own reprocussions as well.

 

[FoolKiller]

We are back at my original question: Why should they lock up Zimmerman?

Bail is set at 1.000.000 $.

"It appears to this court that defendant is manipulating the system to his own benefit" -- Florida judge on Zimmerman

OK but does that make him a threat to society?

It is a punitive act for what appears to be him lying to the court. There is removing from being a risk and teaching a lesson. Here the judge is trying to teach him a lesson. The ultimate goal likely being that Zimmerman not attempt similar actions during the trial as he now knows he can be caught and face additional penalty.

Also, bail and holding a suspect pre-trial can have more to do with preventing them from fleeing to avoid facing justice than to prevent them from being a threat to society (although a guilty man that flees is arguably a threat). That us why financial status is taken into account along with severity of the charges.

You may not see it as an issue, but when child rapists like Roman Polanski get to walk around freely in Europe I see the value in making sure a flight risk is minimized.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

... It's pretty standard for all crimes above basic misdemeanors.

We stop thinking and do the standard, that is indeed legislation, it violates rights though. See Human Rights thread (I know you do).

Lying under oath has its own reprocussions as well.

Again, imprisonment for Lying, like imprisonment for self defense seems strange to me.

It is a punitive act for what appears to be him lying to the court. There is removing from being a risk and teaching a lesson.

The question is not why? My question is "is it justified", is this the best way to remove the risk? Do you not infringe more of Zimmerman's rights, presuming he is innocent.

Also, bail and holding a suspect pre-trial can have more to do with preventing them from fleeing to avoid facing justice than to prevent them from being a threat to society (although a guilty man that flees is arguably a threat). That us why financial status is taken into account along with severity of the charges.

Presumed innocent? I can agree with someone that tried to flee justice.

You may not see it as an issue, but when child rapists like Roman Polanski get to walk around freely in Europe I see the value in making sure a flight risk is minimized.

I had Polanski discussions before, the essence everyone should answer for their acts where-ever they are. We as humans should understand this and act upon it.

 

[ShobThaBob]

We stop thinking and do the standard, that is indeed legislation, it violates rights though. See Human Rights thread (I know you do).

It really doesn't violate anything. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he killed someone. Whether or not he's guilty of a crime is yet to be seen, but the severity of the case coupled with him not being truthful raises doubt as to whether or not he can be trusted to come back to court when he's supposed to. That's the whole point of bail.

Again, imprisonment for Lying, like imprisonment for self defense seems strange to me.

He's imprisoned because he killed someone and cannot reasonably provide the court assurances that he won't flee.

Do you not infringe more of Zimmerman's rights, presuming he is innocent.

His rights are not being imposed on. The public is being protected from a possible murderer that lies under oath and cannot give tangible assurances that he won't flee and get away with the crime he possibly comitted.

I don't even know why you're bringing up the issue of bail in this. If we were to carry through your ideas fully, people accused of crimes wouldn't be held in prison at all. The amount of money they can post would have nothing to do with the heart of the matter.

 

[FoolKiller]

Again, imprisonment for Lying, like imprisonment for self defense seems strange to me.

When lying prevents justice it can violate the rights of others. In this case he lied to avoid detainment while waiting to go to trial for a very serious accusation.

The question is not why? My question is "is it justified", is this the best way to remove the risk? Do you not infringe more of Zimmerman's rights, presuming he is innocent.

He has been indicted for murder at this point. That means that investigators took their evidence to a grand jury, which are individual citizens like a trial jury (my wife served on one), and that group determined, based on just evidence put in front of them without a defense, that a legitimate argument of his guilt can be made. He is still presumed innocent because he has not been allowed to offer a defense at this point, but the justice system sees enough to accuse him of a major crime. At this point you cannot just let them wander around freely because they are in a state of legal limbo between being guilty and innocent.

He is given an opportunity to argue how trustworthy he is to be allowed to not be detained. He also argues for what financial risk he can place as a down payment on him coming to his trial on his own is. He apparently lied during a hearing to determine if he is trustworthy. It is justified to say that a possible threat to society has proven they cannot be trusted to remain law-abiding and face his trial, thus should not be allowed to freely roam about until the trial begins.

Presumed innocent? I can agree with someone that tried to flee justice.

What about someone who lies about their ability to flee justice? Does that not add to suspicion, and not affect the outcome of a trust-based decision?

I had Polanski discussions before, the essence everyone should answer for their acts where-ever they are. We as humans should understand this and act upon it.

Polanski is free because he argued successfully the way you are for Zimmerman. And he showed no signs of not being trustworthy.

The only way to remove the need to constrain the accused is to make trials happen immediately after charges are made, but then that prevents the accused from having proper time to build up a defense.

 

[ShobThaBob]

prevents the accused from having proper time to build up a defense.

Or, in this case, the prosecution!

 

[FoolKiller]

Or, in this case, the prosecution!

If the law worked that way no indictment would be sought until the prosecution had everything they needed. Arguably, the initial case is ready at the time of indictment, but it would make a pretty poor prosecutor that didn't continue digging in the interim.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

.. He is still presumed innocent because he has not been allowed to offer a defense at this point, but the justice system sees enough to accuse him of a major crime....

The whole point is if he is presumed innocent you are locking up a innocent man.

I do understand why we lock up murderers, based on sufficient indications (a temporary judgement). Zimmerman called the police to say what he was doing, until he was charged he was free and did not run, after first bail he did not run, ....
If you lock someone up, you assume they will do injustice.
I do not believe in prison for people that will not do physical harm.

Very similar in Belgium this week-end:
Burglar breaks in house, man with weapon goes to have a look, burglar pulls knife, man shoots ... burglar dies and man is locked up.
Clearly the man killed someone, but is there really a threat to society?
Clearly the man will have to take responsibility for his acts.

 

[FoolKiller]

The whole point is if he is presumed innocent you are locking up a innocent man.

I do understand why we lock up murderers, based on sufficient indications (a temporary judgement). Zimmerman called the police to say what he was doing, until he was charged he was free and did not run, after first bail he did not run, ....
If you lock someone up, you assume they will do injustice.
I do not believe in prison for people that will not do physical harm.

He didn't flee before he was charged. He could flee after. Polanski didn't flee until after the guilty verdict came in.

But he is out now. You were getting worked up over a pre-bail detainment. This stuff doesn't happen overnight and you have your wish now.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-06/...-martin-first-bond-hearing-jail?_s=PM:JUSTICE

 

[ShobThaBob]

I do understand why we lock up murderers

Zimmerman may be a murderer. Murder is a crime with specific criteria that must be met. He is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a killer. You're saying you have no problem with the police ringing the doorbell of a killer going "hey, ya know, just fyi, you might be going to jail if the courts decide you murdered that guy you killed. Could you do us a favor and hang around until we decide that? THANKS"

You don't find that situation completely audacious?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Zimmerman may be a murderer. Murder is a crime with specific criteria that must be met. He is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a killer. You're saying you have no problem with the police ringing the doorbell of a killer going "hey, ya know, just fyi, you might be going to jail if the courts decide you murdered that guy you killed. Could you do us a favor and hang around until we decide that? THANKS"

You don't find that situation completely audacious?

What I was stating is that when you lock someone up you see them as not innocent.

Take this specific case:
* there would be no bail if they believed that Zimmerman would kill again when he is running around freely. So they did not lock him up for risk on violating that right.
* they ask for a high bail since they believe that will incite Zimmerman not to run away, but Zimmerman did never run away. So they gave up his right to be considered innocent of wanting to run away.

He didn't flee before he was charged. He could flee after

Read about the Great Terror under Stalin. People did not betray the country, they were given death sentence because there was a possibility that they would betray the country.

The principle that you can not be punished for something you did not do is essential in rights, otherwise Stalin was right to kill his political enemies.

Zimmerman did not flee, bail is a punishment based on the assumption that he will flee.

you have your wish now.

My wish is to hear what happened from Trayvon Martin and compare both stories to the facts. But ..., anyway it is best to respect rights, no matter what.

 

[FoolKiller]

And how do you propose we prevent every guilty criminal with the means from fleeing the moment his attorney tells him the outcome looks bad?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

And how do you propose we prevent every guilty criminal with the means from fleeing the moment his attorney tells him the outcome looks bad?

International collaboration.

Lee Zeitouni was driven over by Claude Khayat and Eric Robic in an accident in Israel and then they fled immediately to France. Since the Israeli family did not want to accept French court and the French did not want to accept Israeli court it took ages for something to happen. Now charges were made at a French court and a judgement will come. Countries should not matter, rights are universal.

But you keep falling in the same trap as many do, some people are criminals and run away from their responsibilities, that is not a reason to punish people that did not do this. The crime of 1 guilty does not justify the punishment of millions of innocent.

 

[FoolKiller]

International collaboration.

Lee Zeitouni was driven over by Claude Khayat and Eric Robic in an accident in Israel and then they fled immediately to France. Since the Israeli family did not want to accept French court and the French did not want to accept Israeli court it took ages for something to happen. Now charges were made at a French court and a judgement will come. Countries should not matter, rights are universal.

But you keep falling in the same trap as many do, some people are criminals and run away from their responsibilities, that is not a reason to punish people that did not do this. The crime of 1 guilty does not justify the punishment of millions of innocent.

It's not a punishment. It only applies to those who present themselves in a way to be a flight risk. It is not an across the board ruling. They are given an opportunity to show why they aren't a flight risk. It is why Zimmerman is not in jail today.

If international collaboration worked it wouldn't be an issue at all. But then you'd probably complain about the freedom to move about freely.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Oh yeah, tracking down and extraditing people. That sounds like a wonderful use of government resources. I'm kinda surprised that people were willing to donate a million dollars to get him out of jail.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It's not a punishment. ...

Indeed that is what I was saying, it is a rights violation against a presumed innocent person. He was in prison when I started the conversation. The point is that we judge people on what others have done wrong (fly a judgement) and lock innocent people up, which is against their rights.

Oh yeah, tracking down and extraditing people. That sounds like a wonderful use of government resources.

If I would believe in the justice system I would gladly tell the government where to find a criminal. You seem to miss that you are the government, they only represent you for practical reasons. You also seem to miss that defending rights is the only reason for existence of government, so tracking down criminals is the only expense a government should have.

I also agree that it is not practical to let people run and then get them back with difficulty, does that justify to be in Guantanamo for 10 years on the suspicion of being a cook?

From an other thread:

Charles Manson is in prison.

Is there a thread on this one? I bet we differ in opinion. Not on the point if Charles Manson is dangerous though, he is something else then Zimmerman.

Edit:

But then you'd probably complain about the freedom to move about freely.

I seriously think you are projecting your own thinking issues somewhere else here, you seem to miss you are defending to lock up innocent people.

 

[FoolKiller]

Indeed that is what I was saying, it is a rights violation against a presumed innocent person. He was in prison when I started the conversation. The point is that we judge people on what others have done wrong (fly a judgement) and lock innocent people up, which is against their rights.

He was in detainment, usually a private cell in the court house, not prison. Prisons are far different He was temporarily detained until charges were evaluated and his trustworthiness to not flee justice determined.

You're argument basically says that until court is over we allow indicted suspects to wander freely. That logic basically says that police merely hand out citations for all crimes and no arrest shall happen until after the trial.

Due process is important, but so is maintaining peace and order by preventing rights violations between citizens and by having the guilty face justice. Detainment can get innocent people. It is a shame when it does. But criminals being allowed to wander about with the freedom to avoid justice is not the answer.

If I would believe in the justice system I would gladly tell the government where to find a criminal.

Even if he is in the next room with a gun to a loved one's head?

That's extreme but not unrealistic. The gang issues in some cities have led to a don't snitch or else attitude. The fear instilled in people is great that even an incredibly violent murder in broad daylight on a busy street will sometimes have no admitted witnesses.

Your statement is honorable, but also innocently naive.

You seem to miss that you are the government, they only represent you for practical reasons. You also seem to miss that defending rights is the only reason for existence of government, so tracking down criminals is the only expense a government should have.

You have a lot of faith in government being what they are supposed to be.

I also agree that it is not practical to let people run and then get them back with difficulty, does that justify to be in Guantanamo for 10 years on the suspicion of being a cook?

What? Who mentioned Guantanamo? And what does wartime terrorist enemy combatants (POW even?) have to do with pre-trial detainment of US citizens who are being granted due process?

From an other thread:

Is there a thread on this one? I bet we differ in opinion. Not on the point if Charles Manson is dangerous though, he is something else then Zimmerman.

Why are you even bringing this up in this thread?

Edit:

I seriously think you are projecting your own thinking issues somewhere else here, you seem to miss you are defending to lock up innocent people.

I know what I am defending. You are defending criminals wandering around freely before their trial and acting as if presumed innocent means we treat none of them as possible dangers to society or flight risks. You defend your opinion by saying the solution is international collaboration. Since I know you have a very broad definition of rights I suggested that you would still not be happy with that solution. I also pointed out that international collaboration doesn't work, which you conveniently avoided addressing.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I also pointed out that international collaboration doesn't work, which you conveniently avoided addressing.

I agree it does not work at this moment. I do not agree it is a valid reason to legalise rights infringements.

You are defending criminals wandering around freely before their trial and acting as if presumed innocent means we treat none of them as possible dangers to society or flight risks.

When no bail can be set, that situation exists, it means that the person is found guilty by the judge, that can be justified. By saying bail is possible you admit you robbed someone of their freedom where you believe they are no threat to society, that is a rights violation.

I admit your approach is better proven and many accept it. The exercise I do here is the same as I did in the Burqa thread, finding the limit in a practical case. The argument for a Burqa ban are very similar to your arguments of detainment of innocent people, once upon a time someone did something ....

Since I know you have a very broad definition of rights I suggested that you would still not be happy with that solution.

Can you elaborate on this "Broad definition of rights"?

N.B.: I brought Charles Manson up here since he is detained and claims it is against his rights, very close to the arguments for Zimmerman, but I do believe there are differences.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree it does not work at this moment. I do not agree it is a valid reason to legalise rights infringements.

When no bail can be set, that situation exists, it means that the person is found guilty by the judge, that can be justified. By saying bail is possible you admit you robbed someone of their freedom where you believe they are no threat to society, that is a rights violation.

You are acting as if there is no due process in this. There is a trial to determine if this person, guilty or innocent, will attend the trial and show respect toward the justice system or has exhibited a historical pattern or current intent to skip trial. They are also allowed to demand an immediate trial and have many other advantages. The fact that only in cases of the most horrible crimes or when they have shown an obvious intent to flee are they not given bail should say that the justice system understands what is at risk in mistreating the innocent. Zimmerman only faced a second detainment and bail hearing because he lied in order to try to make his ability to flee look less than it is. That does not encourage a sense of innocence and lack of intent to flee. But it could just be a guy trying to save some money, and he was given the opportunity to convince the judge of that. Successfully.

The system does not take this lightly and tries to not unjustly hold those who shouldn't be. To act as if it is a massive system of rights violations is misrepresenting it.

I admit your approach is better proven and many accept it. The exercise I do here is the same as I did in the Burqa thread, finding the limit in a practical case. The argument for a Burqa ban are very similar to your arguments of detainment of innocent people, once upon a time someone did something ....

I'm not arguing for detaining innocent people. The fact you think so is why I believe you don't understand how seriously the court takes these cases and why I can't think of any cases of denied bail off the top of my head, aside from the Manson case mentioned in your post.

Can you elaborate on this "Broad definition of rights"?

You believe rights apply in far more cases than I do, or you at least argue it.

N.B.: I brought Charles Manson up here since he is detained and claims it is against his rights, very close to the arguments for Zimmerman, but I do believe there are differences.

Manson is imprisoned after a trial of his peers in which he was even allowed to represent himself and managed to verbally assault the judge. He's lucky California banned the death penalty before his execution date. There is zero similarity between the cases.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You are acting as if there is no due process in this. There is a trial to determine if this person, guilty or innocent, will attend the trial and show respect toward the justice system or has exhibited a historical pattern or current intent to skip trial. They are also allowed to demand an immediate trial and have many other advantages.

OK I can accept this. However I remain with a pure language usage issue. When you detain someone you can not call them innocent, because this would be against rights. You need to say that the person is considered a threat to society based on the available proof. Something like: "In this case the death of Martin makes Zimmerman a threat to society and for that he is detained or only out on bail so that there is assurance on a fair full trial at later date."

The point I'm trying to make is that self defense or passionate killing in my book does not lead to repeated killing, so is no reason for detention.

Conclusion: If you just say Zimmerman should show up at the trial you see him as innocent, when you say Zimmerman has to be detained or at least have bail set, then you see Zimmerman as a threat to society. Your viewpoint shows your opinion on innocence.

You believe rights apply in far more cases than I do, or you at least argue it.

In the Human Rights thread we are looking for theoretical logical rights, indeed this makes my view of rights unconventional, maybe that might change.
Threads like this allow to go more practical, see why we do not have these theoretical rights implemented.

My conclusion remains:
1) If you apply rights in a strict way you put yourself in a weak position, because you need to assume others innocent and the attacker has the advantage. You put yourself in the situation of a victim.
2) If you do not apply rights in a strict way, you are illogical, you can prove yourself crazy, but it is a more practical approach in many cases.

Since people do apply option 2 and not want to admit they are crazy, they ignore their conclusions on rights.

There is zero similarity between the cases.

Pure opinion and one I could also defend, but that is why I asked if there was a thread about Charles Manson (I looked before).

 

[FoolKiller]

when you say Zimmerman has to be detained or at least have bail set, then you see Zimmerman as a threat to society.

No, I don't. I say it is because even innocent people may be tempted to flee justice and deny the victims of his actions (in this case homicide) the due process of determining the right or wrong of his actions. Zimmerman may very well be innocent of any wrongdoing, but that does not mean he gets to just skip out on the process used to determine that. If he acts in good faith he ultimately loses nothing as even the bail money is returned to him.

I understand your concern, but I wonder if you understand US law in relation to bail. We are constitutionally protected from even excessive bail by the Bill of Rights in the Eighth Amendment. Current laws used to determine excessive bail the judge is bound by a specific set of rules to determine if any bail is necessary at all and if it is, the reasoning given for it based on the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142

Bail exceptions (no bail granted) are only made in the case of a capital crime (such as murder or manslaughter) and it is determined they are a flight risk or a danger to others.

It is not a loose determination that can vary widely from judge to judge.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Also, on a more basic level, is it right to the public to let a man walk around who we know has killed someone without reasonable proof that he won't flee?

 

[Solid Lifters]

The family of Treyvon Martin have asked Australian Immigration for information on one Islam Siddiqi who was one of the main fund raisers for the Martin family

Seems the gents gone walkabout and may be in Australia.

 

[Zenith]

How is that even slightly related to what transpired the night that their son was shot?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Also, on a more basic level, is it right to the public to let a man walk around who we know has killed someone without reasonable proof that he won't flee?

I repeat once more: this is exactly the thinking that was used in the Great Terror in Russia. You come to situations where you say, I lock up a person because he could not proof that he would not do something bad in the future.
When the person has not done something bad, the person is innocent, you can not punish him up for it. Zimmerman for fleeing in this case.

I see no issue if you say I lock up Zimmerman since there are sufficient elements that he is a threat for society, he killed someone.

Vince_Fiero
when you say Zimmerman has to be detained or at least have bail set, then you see Zimmerman as a threat to society.

The you in this is not personal to anyone, it is general, logical, if he is no threat why would you detain or set bail? That is actually in the US law that was linked, you need to estimate the threat the person is, if the person is no threat you should just let them go.